The main legal point established is the importance of a liberal and justice-oriented approach in dealing with applications to condone delay, considering the elastic nature of the term 'sufficient cause' and the obligation to remove injustice.

ORDER :

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the impugned orders in I.A. Nos. 865 and 866 of 2019 both dated 28.11.2019 in O.S. No. 1433 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Accordingly, it is proposed to dispose of both the C.R.P. together, through this common order.

2. I.A. No. 865 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order-IX, Rule-13 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018 passed in the Original Suit No. 1433 of 2017. Whereas, I.A. No. 866 of 2019 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 277 days in filing an application under Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018 in O.S. No. 1433 of 2017. Against the orders in I.A. No. 865 of 2019, C.R.P. No. 596 of 2020 and against the orders in I.A. No. 866 of 2019, C.R.P. No. 597 of 2020 are preferred by the plaintiff.

3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused the material available on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit.

4. The plaintiff has filed the Original Suit No. 1433 f 2017 for eviction of defendant from Plot No. 7 in Survey No. 125 admeasuring 3000 square yards, out of 4133.50 square yards, situated at IDA, Mallapur, Ranga Reddy District and for damages for use and occupation of the same at Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit.

5. In this suit, the defendant remained absent on service of summons, he was set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed by the trial Curt on 18.09.2018. Pursuant to the decree, the plaintiff has filed E.P. No. 19 of 2019. Notice was served in the said E.P. on the defendant. Then he approached the trial Court and filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 277 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018 and another application filed under Order-IX, Rule-13 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018.

6. The contention of the defendant as discernible from the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act in I.A. No. 866 of 2019 is that he has obtained the suit schedule property on lease, vide registered sale deed document No. 8021 of 2016, dated 04.07.2016 for a period of 9 years from 21.03.2015 on monthly rent basis for the purpose of manufacturing of UPVC aluminium, wood and wood related plastic, composite doors and window frames. He invested Rs.80 lakhs to raise walls and shed, underground pipes and installed the machinery. As per the lease deed, the lock-in period is 5 years from the date of occupation. He has been paying the rents regularly. Without his knowledge, the plaintiff has filed the original suit, obtained an ex-parte decree and only when notice in E.P. No. 19 of 2019 was served on him on 06.02.2019, he has come to know about the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018 and accordingly, prayed to condone the delay of 277 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018.

7. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A. No. 865 of 2019 filed under Order-IX, Rule-13 of CPC are almost in similar lines.

8. These two applications were resisted by the plaintiff, who filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that execution of sale deed is admitted and the period of lease commences for a period of 9 years from 21.03.2015, but the defendant failed to pay the rental amount as prayed. Consequently, the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy through notice dated 22.04.2017 calling upon the defendant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 5,10,000/-. In the said notice, it is categorically stated that out of Rs. 11,60,000/- the defendant has paid Rs. 6.50 lakhs only and the balance is Rs. 5.10 lakhs. The defendant has caused damage to the backside of the